California Court Narrows Commute Exceptions in Workers’ Comp Vanpool Case

A published California decision has clarified the limits of two exceptions to the “going and coming” rule for workers injured while commuting.

In Zenith Insurance Co. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Hernandez) (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1164, the Third District Court of Appeal held that the special-risk and dual-purpose exceptions did not apply to a farmworker injured in a coworker-operated vanpool. The court annulled the WCAB’s decision and remanded the claim for further proceedings.

Read the published opinion on CourtListener.

A Catastrophic Crash During the Ride Home

Javier Hernandez worked as a farm laborer for Ceja Reyes, Inc., a farm labor contractor. He lived in Yuba City and was assigned to a worksite in Winters, approximately 60 miles away.

Ceja Reyes did not provide transportation. Hernandez’s employment contract stated that the employer did not make or recommend transportation arrangements and that he was responsible for getting to and from work.

Another employee operated a vanpool as an independent side business. Hernandez, who did not drive or own a car, paid $10 per day for the ride. The employer knew that employees arrived in the van, but the record did not show that it arranged the transportation or knew that the vanpool’s drivers lacked valid licenses.

On May 26, 2022, the van rolled over while taking workers home. The driver did not have a California driver’s license, and the vehicle was not certified as a farm labor vehicle. Hernandez sustained catastrophic injuries, including the amputation of his right leg.

The Going-and-Coming Rule

California workers’ compensation generally covers injuries arising out of and occurring in the course of employment. Under the judicially created going-and-coming rule, an injury sustained during an ordinary commute to or from a fixed workplace at fixed hours is usually outside the course of employment.

The rule has exceptions. Hernandez argued before the workers’ compensation judge that employer-controlled transportation or a benefit to the employer brought his injury within the compensation system. The judge instead relied on the special-risk and dual-purpose exceptions. The WCAB adopted that reasoning and denied Zenith’s petition for reconsideration.

Why the Special-Risk Exception Did Not Apply

The special-risk exception generally addresses a distinctive employment-related danger encountered just outside the employer’s premises. It has been applied, for example, when an employee must navigate a particular hazard created by the location or access conditions of the workplace.

The accident involving Hernandez occurred during the commute, not immediately outside the employer’s premises. The court found no authority supporting expansion of the employment zone to cover an entire 60-mile trip.

The record also did not establish a sufficient connection between the risk and a condition controlled by Ceja Reyes. Although the employer knew a vanpool existed, there was no evidence it knew Hernandez could not drive, knew the license status of the vanpool drivers, or controlled how the coworker operated the service. The risks cited by the WCAB arose primarily from Hernandez’s personal transportation circumstances rather than from the worksite or an employment condition imposed by the employer.

The court warned that the WCAB’s reasoning could effectively create a special-risk exception whenever an employer hired someone who did not own a car or possess a driver’s license. Existing case law did not support such a broad rule.

Why the Dual-Purpose Exception Also Failed

The dual-purpose exception may apply when a commute also serves a distinct business purpose that provides the employer a benefit beyond the ordinary need for the employee to report to work.

The WCAB reasoned that the vanpool helped Ceja Reyes reliably provide workers to agricultural clients and allowed the supervisor to assign duties when several employees arrived together. The Court of Appeal held that those facts were not enough. Every employer benefits when employees arrive for work, and the supervisor assigned duties after the workers arrived—not while they were traveling.

An ambiguous statement that the vanpool operator was “in charge” of the workers while they used the van also did not establish that Hernandez performed work during the trip. Without a separate employment purpose for the commute, the dual-purpose exception did not apply.

What the Court Actually Decided

The court held only that the two exceptions relied upon by the WCAB—special risk and dual purpose—did not fit the facts. It annulled the WCAB’s May 29, 2024 order and remanded for further proceedings. The opinion became final, and the Third District issued its remittitur on July 10, 2025.

The decision should not be described as a final ruling that Hernandez was ineligible for benefits. The court did not adjudicate every possible theory or make the ultimate factual findings on the entire claim.

An Important Post-Remand Development

On March 13, 2026, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to enter a new decision after remittitur. The Board proposed finding that Zenith had failed to prove the threshold elements of the going-and-coming rule because, in its view, the evidence did not establish a local commute at fixed hours. The notice also deferred other issues and allowed the parties time to object.

That later administrative notice is not the Court of Appeal’s holding, and it illustrates why the appellate decision must be reported carefully. The published opinion rejected two exceptions; it did not itself end Hernandez’s case.

Practical Takeaways for California Commute Injuries

Whether a commute injury is compensable depends on more than the distance traveled or the severity of the accident. Relevant questions include who arranged and paid for transportation, whether the employer required a particular mode or route, whether the employer exercised control, whether the employee performed work during the trip, and whether the commute supplied a benefit beyond ordinary attendance.

Employers should document transportation policies and avoid informal practices that conflict with written disclaimers. Injured workers should preserve evidence about schedules, instructions, reimbursement, supervisory communications, vehicle arrangements, and the employer’s knowledge.

Zenith narrows two specific exceptions, but its remand also confirms that a commute case cannot be reduced to a single label. The full facts and the precise doctrine asserted remain decisive.